Dataset Information

TCGA-TCIA Impact on Radiogenomics Cancer Research: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: In the last decade, the development of radiogenomics research has produced a significant amount of papers describing relations between imaging features and several molecular 'omic signatures arising from next-generation sequencing technology and their potential role in the integrated diagnostic field. The most vulnerable point of many of these studies lies in the poor number of involved patients. In this scenario, a leading role is played by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA), which make available, respectively, molecular 'omic data and linked imaging data. In this review, we systematically collected and analyzed radiogenomic studies based on TCGA-TCIA data. We organized literature per tumor type and molecular 'omic data in order to discuss salient imaging genomic associations and limitations of each study. Finally, we outlined the potential clinical impact of radiogenomics to improve the accuracy of diagnosis and the prediction of patient outcomes in oncology.

SUBMITTER: Zanfardino M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6929079 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

TCGA-TCIA Impact on Radiogenomics Cancer Research: A Systematic Review.

Zanfardino Mario M Pane Katia K Mirabelli Peppino P Salvatore Marco M Franzese Monica M

International journal of molecular sciences 20191129 23

In the last decade, the development of radiogenomics research has produced a significant amount of papers describing relations between imaging features and several molecular 'omic signatures arising from next-generation sequencing technology and their potential role in the integrated diagnostic field. The most vulnerable point of many of these studies lies in the poor number of involved patients. In this scenario, a leading role is played by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and The Cancer Imaging ...[more]

PMID: 31795520

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is endorsed to improve cardiovascular outcomes in cancer survivors. The quality of CR-based research in oncology has not been assessed. Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of reporting and evidence from CR-based intervention studies in oncology and to explore associations between intervention participation and outcomes. Methods Systematic searches of 5 databases were conducted (January 2020) and updated (September 2021). Randomized and nonrandomized studies evaluating CR-based interventions in adult cancer survivors during and after treatment were eligible. Independent reviewers extracted data using 2 reporting guidelines (Template for Intervention Description and Replication and Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials Harms extension), risk of bias (ROB) assessment tools (Cochrane ROB 2.0 and Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions), and a combined inventory (Tool for the Assessment of Study Quality and reporting in Exercise). A meta-analysis was used to explore pre-intervention/post-intervention differences for commonly assessed outcomes. Results Ten studies involving data from 685 survivors were included. The mean quality scores for intervention reporting (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) and harms (Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials Harms extension) were 62% and 17%, respectively. There was moderate-to-high ROB across nonrandomized (Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions score: 25%) and randomized (ROB 2.0 score: 50%) studies. The mean standardized cardiorespiratory fitness was higher (0.42; 95% CI: 0.27-0.57), fatigue was lower (−0.45; 95% CI: −0.55 to −0.34), and percent body fat (0.07; 95% CI: −0.23 to 0.38) was not different in survivors completing CR compared with those not completing CR. Conclusions CR-based studies in oncology have low-to-moderate reporting quality and moderate-to-high ROB limiting interpretation, reproducibility, and translation of this evidence into practice. Central Illustration

Project description:BackgroundAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians (hereafter respectfully Indigenous Australians) claim that they have been over-researched without corresponding research benefit. This claim raises two questions. The first, which has been covered to some extent in the literature, is about what type(s) of research are likely to achieve benefits for Indigenous people. The second is how researchers report the impact of their research for Indigenous people. This systematic review of Indigenous health reviews addresses the second enquiry.MethodsFourteen electronic databases were systematically searched for Indigenous health reviews which met eligibility criteria. Two reviewers assessed their characteristics and methodological rigour using an a priori protocol. Three research hypotheses were stated and tested: (1) reviews address Indigenous health priority needs; (2) reviews adopt best practice guidelines on research conduct and reporting in respect to methodological transparency and rigour, as well as acceptability and appropriateness of research implementation to Indigenous people; and (3) reviews explicitly report the incremental impacts of the included studies and translation of research. We argue that if review authors explicitly address each of these three hypotheses, then the impact of research for Indigenous peoples' health would be explicated.ResultsSeventy-six reviews were included; comprising 55 journal articles and 21 Australian Government commissioned evidence review reports. While reviews are gaining prominence and recognition in Indigenous health research and increasing in number, breadth and complexity, there is little reporting of the impact of health research for Indigenous people. This finding raises questions about the relevance of these reviews for Indigenous people, their impact on policy and practice and how reviews have been commissioned, reported and evaluated.ConclusionsThe findings of our study serve two main purposes. First, we have identified knowledge and methodological gaps in documenting Indigenous health research impact that can be addressed by researchers and policy makers. Second, the findings provide the justification for developing a framework allowing researchers and funding bodies to structure future Indigenous health research to improve the reporting and assessment of impact over time.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasingly, researchers need to demonstrate the impact of their research to their sponsors, funders, and fellow academics. However, the most appropriate way of measuring the impact of healthcare research is subject to debate. We aimed to identify the existing methodological frameworks used to measure healthcare research impact and to summarise the common themes and metrics in an impact matrix.Methods and findingsTwo independent investigators systematically searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL+), the Health Management Information Consortium, and the Journal of Research Evaluation from inception until May 2017 for publications that presented a methodological framework for research impact. We then summarised the common concepts and themes across methodological frameworks and identified the metrics used to evaluate differing forms of impact. Twenty-four unique methodological frameworks were identified, addressing 5 broad categories of impact: (1) 'primary research-related impact', (2) 'influence on policy making', (3) 'health and health systems impact', (4) 'health-related and societal impact', and (5) 'broader economic impact'. These categories were subdivided into 16 common impact subgroups. Authors of the included publications proposed 80 different metrics aimed at measuring impact in these areas. The main limitation of the study was the potential exclusion of relevant articles, as a consequence of the poor indexing of the databases searched.ConclusionsThe measurement of research impact is an essential exercise to help direct the allocation of limited research resources, to maximise research benefit, and to help minimise research waste. This review provides a collective summary of existing methodological frameworks for research impact, which funders may use to inform the measurement of research impact and researchers may use to inform study design decisions aimed at maximising the short-, medium-, and long-term impact of their research.

Dataset Information

TCGA-TCIA Impact on Radiogenomics Cancer Research: A Systematic Review.

Publications

TCGA-TCIA Impact on Radiogenomics Cancer Research: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets